X-Frame

Sorry for the delay but yes please, if you can a high res of the chassis. Can be lube chart or other photo of it showing the small X brace design. Thanks! Can PM me when you can do this and I'll give you a direct email to send to. Eric

Graham Man... sent you an email. Thanks. Eric

I also know that the 1920s Horch also used this type of differential but different spring arrangement. Many European cars used the semi spring arrangement or one that is different than those of traditional leaf springs.

Hoping that someone out there will know of or own a 1934 Graham and can verify that it was the only year made to have both the Banjo Frame and a X brace? Also, does anyone have a shop manual that shows this frame in it... especially one that may have the alignment dimensions? Or even a good picture from a parts manual - hi res scan? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Eric

Is the SMC Blueprint website down? Their address hasn't expired or won't until May but I can't access any area of the site... forum, blueprints, etc... www.smcars.net Thanks. Eric

Do you think your aunt will let it go to you or just let it sit and be forgotten again? I would hope you could talk her into letting it go since it isn't beneficial to let a car simply sit, as you can see with the interior.

What, no interest in this even though many show and prototypes come up for auction? Hmmmm...:confused:

Not front wheel drive but something to look into considering you never see these any longer are Pontiac Fiero. I also like the bustle-back trunk Lincoln Continental and Cadillac Seville of the early 1980s as contenders. Eric

I had thought about this question in the past since I own a 1989 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera International with only 80k miles. Seeing that Oldsmobile is no longer and this is a relatively low milage car for the year (averages about 3k per year) and is only 2 years from being "antique", wonder if I should hold on to it? Eric

I am going through this thread now but Ken... Miata is a Rear Wheel Drive car

I think that the issue is that the X is too rigid which makes it more impact unfriendly as G-forces travel throughout the car more. Has anyone looked at the other crash test involving a 1962 and 2002 Cadillac in a 50-mph head-on collision? Also, I like the way Rusty_OToole describes the design theory. In fact, I was told by Fred Cowin who worked on the 1957 style X-Frame design that Fisher Body wasn't ready to add the extra strength components needed to work with the new frame so yes, there is a lot of fault with the body design rather than just the frame. Eric

I get what you are saying but when it comes to low number cars, it is a shame to do alterations that are irreversible. Do you store all of the stock parts including frame for the next person who wants to revert it back for possible show for points state? Get what I mean? And don't get me wrong. I enjoy looking at the old hot rods and such but they were usually done with common cars produced by the millions so no shortage of donor cars or parts.

Jim... then you are saying that the 1956 Mercedes example is not a real price - that half of it is import duty? Then how do you explain the 1956 Triumph TR3 that cost $2,599 or a 1956 Nash Metropolitan (built in England by Austin) that cost $1,527. Would that mean that the Metropolitan actually only cost $764 US dollars in England?

I thought it was about time to start another FUN thread... one everyone can enjoy without debating and in the long run, I may learn something too. This is about Show Cars, Dream Cars, Concepts and Prototypes. Those that were actually built and not just on paper. Examples would be: 1962 Silhouette built by Bill Cushenberry 1965 Dodge Deora built by Harry Bentley Bradley 1955 Lincoln Futura built by Ghia for Ford-Lincoln under Bill Schmidt designs Only thing I ask is that IF you happen to know about the chassis design, please post it along with any pictures. This will also help my book project in knowing what used an X frame. I can tell you that with the three examples I gave above, only the Silhouette used a modified 1956 Buick X frame chassis. The Deora was based on a shortened Dodge A100 cabover and the Lincoln Futura had a prototype 1956 style Continental MkII Y shaped backbone chassis which went into production. And of course the Futura became the famed 1966 Batmobile #1 designed by George Barris. Let The Games Begin! Eric

Now why would someone want to even destroy the integrity of accuracy on a rare 1957 Brougham by making such drastic changes? Won't win any points at a show with that. It is like altering an original Tiffany Stain Glass lamp or redesigning a Frank Lloyd Wright house. I figure due to value these are not daily drivers so why go through the alterations?

Nice theories. Where is that post you mentioned the SAE Transactions and where to view them?

Same principal though - an X without side rails. But this isn't entirely true since the body had heavy boxed side rails that sat below the floor pan and attached to those long outriggers. BUT... again, this design is not new and Fiat used it for quite a few years and so did Mercedes without complaint.

Not time to move on until all questions are answered Not only did Oldsmobile diverted but Buick did too and only used this X design for 1961-1964 (other than Riviera that continued through 1970). No one has approached as to why Riviera continued for 6 more years with what is considered a "faulty" design?

Any Imperial built prior to 1967 had a seperate chassis frame and all were heavy like you see in the above picture between 1957-1966. Those are basically the ones banned from demos. I remember a time I wanted to add a right hand side mirror that my 1963 LeBaron didn't have but the '64 model did. I used a hammer and a steel punch to mark a pilot hole and it simply bounced off the fender like rubber and left no mark. That is how thick the steel was on these cars! The frames were massive and some may say overkill but all Chrysler products prior to unibody and after 1956 had this style frame but the Imperial was heavier and had more large cross beams.

Are you sure it was the Chevrolet and not Chrysler Imperial? I know Imperials were often banned from demo shows because they were indestructible. Your comment about a '63 Chevrolet segways into the safety issue on other threads here and the 1959 crash test (Chevy had the same basic frame from 1958-1964).

And the rigidity issues you mention seem to be opposite from what I have read. It was said these frames were too rigid and so were noisy (road noise) going through them. And GM advertised them to be more rigid than their previous frames. But I do have a question since you brought up convertibles. How did the 1957 design frame differ between closed body and convertibles? Traditionally the X was thicker than the side rail steel in the older style frames or there was added plating to the top of rails. How did the tube X handle this?

Vega Chevette Pinto Gremlin To name a few None of them lasted very long on the road.

I am surprised you would omit the Imperial as a safe car over other lighter ones. But I would rather have a pre 1967 model that had a massive side rail frame. I have owned both... a 1963 LeBaron (forest green, white leather), a 1972 LeBaron (black on black in black leather), and a 1975 LeBaron (white on white in white leather). Granted, the '72 is sleek looking but the '63 I was more safe feeling in and had much thicker gauge sheetmetal too. The early Imperials were often banned from demolition derbys due to their indestructibility. Picture of a 1972 Imperial and a 1963 Crown body/frame diagram below.

I remember a friend of mine having a X-11 and didn't keep it very long, was a dud for him. It looked like the red one below, but his was black:

Good Afternoon everyone... I finally got to the college library to look up that photo in the 1959 Consumers' Bulletin magazine showing the crash. Got good and bad news... first, their reader was junk but are getting new ones so the "scan" would not save very well. I will go back and capture it when they have new digital readers installed next month. What I found was that this is a "different" car! Wow, I found a second car in the national news which wasn't the same as in the magazine or what Nader was referring to. It was in fact a Chevrolet Impala BUT it wasn't a 1959 but a 1958 and again, a convertible. So... has anyone run across that photo? It shows the front end sitting upright (basically an untouched front clip) in the foreground and in the background the rear section but it wasn't wrapped as badly around the tree as the Pontiac I found. The accident would have happened in September or October but it doesn't say when or where. It was published in the November 1959 issue of the magazine, page 39 - in case anyone has access and can send me a good hi-res scan of it? Eric